Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • Member Title

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. A few years ago (c. 2018) a bunch of people were following Bob's (RIP) blog on USA Audio Mart where he was known as Tubelover2. Straying into all sorts of territory - including PoE - it was an offshoot of Bob's Head-Fi RedNet thread (where he was known as rb2013). On USA Audio Mart, discussion of SATA cables around here and here. It may help to understand that SATA cable rolling did not require significant money, and that iirc a clear leader was the Akasa silver which came in various lengths. See here. I've seen the same cable in even shorter lengths e.g. 15cm. I had the non-Asaka manuf. product code at one time but didn't find it on my PC with a quick look. There were plenty of options on eBay. You may not find the Akasa silver for SATA 3 if that is your requirement; nevertheless, experimentation needn't be expensive. No SATA (cf. chipset) better. Optane CPU-direct best. imho. @tapatrick, @joelhaand others may remember the USA Audio Mart discussions. Not confident that you'll find convincing SATA cable measurements anywhere ... please post if you succeed in finding any!
  2. I post briefly - mainly as a correction to self. In my first post, one line read, "Few would argue that Rock 'n' Roll (pre-Beatles) is an American phenomenon." It should have read, "Few would argue that Rock 'n' Roll (pre-Beatles) is *not* an American phenomenon." My mistake. Mea culpa. And I can see how some crossed wires in recent posts came about if the drift of my whole post was obscured. I absolutely meant the corrected version of course. It has been abundantly evident from my first post in this thread, and all my participation on this Forum, that: - I love rock 'n' roll. - I love American rock 'n' roll. - I am particularly partial to Rockabilly. - I have posted often about the history of pop music. - I care about provenance. - I have demonstrated this in the Covers thread (and elsewhere) on many occasions. - My first post in this thread was plainly about 20th Century rock 'n' roll, credit where due - especially to early 20th Century Blues and R&B, and economic imbalance worldwide as it affected the explosion of all recent pop music. - I tend to be progressive rather than conservative in my outlook. - I tend to be universal rather than parochial in my thinking. - I am far more interested in common ground than conflict. If I may add - I am not an armchair anything! Leaving my virtues aside, I committed a simple grammatical omission - and apologise for any and all consequences of that in particular. If I haven't been clear in other ways - well - perhaps I am not the worst offender. My good wishes to all
  3. My first post did not refer to royalty theft. By Appropriation I did not mean royalty theft. I explained what I did mean - mainly credit for Black compositions and musical originality cf. hits of Elvis, Haley "Shake Rattle & Roll" etc - also economic power driving the music industry and distortions in the lore of pop music. I don't revere the Beatles. I revere American Rock 'n' Roll. I made a case about it that seems in line with your view - not at odds with it. Please can we be done for today at least. Edit: I realise you did not quote me this time. Thank you.
  4. I didn't talk about royalty theft. That was your topic. I don't have reverence for the Beatles. All I said was Rock 'n' Roll pre-Beatles. Then I answered you to explain how all 4 acknowledged American influences. Chris wants a break. So do I. Please could you quit quoting me. Thank you. Have a nice day.
  5. Nobody? That's quite a generalisation. Is "everybody" sending you PMs as we speak? I don't need to offer different explanations if my first post is self-contained. You have demonstrated in Spades that you haven't understood it. Cogley even worse. Yes - I could dumb down. I don't choose to patronise. If anybody wants to read my first post properly I would encourage that.
  6. Well - obviously that is a personal remark. An unpleasant and unnecessary culmination of your complete misunderstanding of my position and how it chimes with yours.
  7. We are agreed about ancient music. My point to you is contradicting "Appropriation is BS" with 20th Century Rock 'n' Roll. I explained fully in my first post. There's way too much addiction to conflict on this Forum. imo
  8. Don't know anything about the Beatles and royalty theft. McC and JL acknowledged Chuck Berry for instance. Probably lots more.
  9. No it is not. You are resorting to external authority. You can develop an argument from first principles. Anyway - you used your own definition as a pivot for my remarks. As already explained. I gave an argument about: 1. credit / plagiarism 2. economic power and distortions in lore What more do you want? You are picking on me about no difference. Because you haven't digested my post. You are looking for conflict when there is none. My argument was about 20th Century Rock 'n' Roll - a counterpoint to "Appropriation is BS". My argument is clear enough. Otherwise I agree about imitation is flattery etc. I have explained. You challenge me on a tangent demonstrating that you haven't understood my post. I answer anyway repeating myself.
  10. What? In the nuked thread I gave a full account of Rock 'n' Roll beginning early in the 20th Century. Lately I have been posting mostly Black origins of Rock 'n' Roll thru R&B. Did you see the link in my post. I repeat it here. I am saying that Rock 'n' Roll is an American thing - not a Beatles thing. omg. I love how GH and Ringo adore Carl Perkins. Paul McC and JL acknowledged all their American influences. I think you're mistaking me fully and completely. Your quote: Music scholars have noted that Black artists, as a class of performers, routinely found their works appropriated and exploited by publishers and managers.8 7 The publishers typically (although hardly always)8 were white.8 9 As a result, Black artists as a class were denied the economic benefits of the copyright system. The prolific exploitation of Black artists casts doubt on the value and neutrality of legally sanctioned economic incentives. The copyright system did not protect Black artists as class from disproportionate economic and cultural exploitation and appropriation of the fruits of their works.90 Yet Black artists, even as slaves, continued to produce original works. This suggests that people from non- western cultures would create original works even without financial incentives. 9' For example, Black American slaves created an impressive body of musical and artistic work, which like their physical labor, went uncompensated.9 2 chimes FULLY with what I am saying. It squares FULLY with the links I gave in my first post in this thread. Please can you read my posts before "challenging" me.
  11. You are doing what you often do. You extract tangents, demonstrating that you haven't read/understood the post to which you're responding. I do what I usually do. Answer in good faith anyway. Even though I have to repeat what I've already said. My Appropriation case was about 20th Century evolution of Rock 'n' Roll - not folk. I already explained I understand about the importance of folk. Most of my posts here are about the "natural" evolution of music. Well - humans as a species 200,000 yrs (and still). Out of Africa 70,000. Probably not much commercial or political exploitation of music during that time. I agree with you - most evolution of music is "natural". Humans influencing each other is "natural". Everything is an eruption of history. I am always saying that. I know what you prefer! I am suggesting something to you for your consideration! I explained my case fully. Credit/plagiarism. Even more important - economic power and implicit distortions in lore. I know you won't accept what I say so I gave an academic reference too. You're challenging my on your own definitions - not what I said. I already explained about "Shake, Rattle & Roll" etc. No need for a shit show when I'm in town.
  12. Great - ty Even better. That was the point of my post. We are on the same page. ty In the nuked thread - before it got crazy enough to nuke - I was very clear about the importance of folk music. How folk precedes everything. I have been very clear: We all agree, surely, that music evolves. But this, of itself, does not mean that Appropriation is non-existent or irrelevant. And then I explained. Most of my posts here are about evolution of music. Not at all. Even Russians know that Rock 'n' Roll was born in the USA. I don't have to explain this.
  13. I'm sorry - I just don't see why my post should be regarded by you or anyone as navel-gazing. There is no obsession. I presented a big-picture counterpoint to "Appropriation is BS". I don't have an opinion worth expressing on "royalty theft". Why don't you explain yours if you have one.
  • Create New...